THE BOOK cover
The Unwritten Book is Finally Written!
An in-depth analysis of: The sacrifice bunt, batter/pitcher matchups, the intentional base on balls, optimizing a batting lineup, hot and cold streaks, clutch performance, platooning strategies, and much more.
Read Excerpts & Customer Reviews

Buy The Book from Amazon


SABR101 required reading if you enter this site. Check out the Sabermetric Wiki. And interesting baseball books.
MOST RECENT ARTICLES
MAIL : You ask | We say

Advanced


THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

<< Back to main

Thursday, February 02, 2012

Verducci Year After Effect: Get over yourself, goodbye

By Tangotiger, 10:46 AM

Derek’s turn at it.


#1    Lee      (see all posts) 2012/02/02 (Thu) @ 12:27

I think the meaning of the phrase “The Verducci Effect” is actually migrating from the original intended meaning: “Year After Effect for young pitchers who were overworked” to something along the lines of…

“The reaction from the Saber community when a writer continues to push a theory in the face of empirical evidence, failing to engage in any sort dialogue and utterly ignoring all information contrary to his opinion.”

I look forward to using “The Verducci Effect” in its new context.


#2    mattmaison      (see all posts) 2012/02/02 (Thu) @ 13:07

+1


#3    Francisco Merejo      (see all posts) 2012/02/02 (Thu) @ 18:42

@1 Should writers prone to make those kind of statements be called “Verduccians” or is there another writer out there more deserving to lead this literary tendency?


#4    Tangotiger      (see all posts) 2012/02/02 (Thu) @ 20:20

Not a single Nicole Scherzinger fan amongst you?


#5    Todd Boss      (see all posts) 2012/02/12 (Sun) @ 13:50

Here’s a thought about the general Sabr community bashing of the so-called Verducci effect; have you guys ever considered that his article may not actually be meant to be a be-all, end-all statistical proof of his theory? 

I read the fangraphs rebuttal listed here and it makes complete sense; when comparing those listed by Verducci versus the “control” group (though I would quibble that i’d like to have seen his work in this case, actually seen the control group he selected) there was no effect. 

But, what’s missing is this; isn’t it implied that, if there’s pitchers out there who Verducci doesn’t include in his articles, then there’s a reason he doesn’t mention them?  Perhaps Verducci’s article is really just something along the lines of this statement: “each year I come up with a list of pitchers who, based on this rule of thumb, may be at risk.” It doesn’t say, “here’s a canonical list of every pitcher who qualifies for my rule of thumb and how they did.”

The distinction is that Verducci is already down-selecting the list of pitchers to study based on his opinion as a baseball writer.  So his study is really just a study of his opinion as stated year to year.  I don’t perceive he’s ever passed this off as a heavy duty statistical analysis. 

Just a thought.


#6    Tangotiger      (see all posts) 2012/02/12 (Sun) @ 16:32

Verducci’s opinion is this:


Page 1 of 1 pages


Name (required)
E-Mail (optional; WILL be published)
Website (optional)

<< Back to main


Latest...

COMMENTS

May 25 15:28
Largest demonstration in Canadian history?

May 25 15:12
Do pitcher’s reach back for velocity when needed?

May 25 15:02
Pete Palmer’s new book: Basic Ball

May 25 14:44
What sabermetrics is NOT

May 25 13:04
“Why Kickstarter works”

May 25 12:51
Chad Curtis

May 25 11:32
Howard Stern

May 25 11:26
Lack of hustle during a game

May 25 10:58
Rooting for laundry

May 25 02:38
NFLPA lawsuit against collusion